What a weird thing for the GM to say. I understand the whole, we'll always listen thing, but to mention a specific player like that? Especially for a player that took less money to join the Yankees just last year.
I wish I could find it, but I have read an article that on base guys have a synergistic effect with other on base guys. The premise was that adding a free swinger to a free swinging lineup might not be so bad since an on base guy of "equal talent" would not get the benefit of being around other on base guys.
Cashman didn't suggest or mention a specific player... that was done by the author (Heyman). EDIT: n/m... I thought you were talking about the Strasburgh reference. I agree it is strange to say that somebody is on the trading block just one year after he signed there (and he largely did his job well).
Interesting - that does make a lot of sense. The problem teams had with KC is not that one or two guys would get on base. It was that they did it endlessly and would score bunches of runs on an endless series of singles and walks. That would be a pretty fascinating study to conduct!
KC had virtually no bottom of the order/lineup... don't think I've ever seen that before on any other team in my lifetime.
They had a couple of bad hitters down at the bottom just like everybody else. They had 6 really good hitters, and then 3 guys with a sub .295 OBP. It's a myth that they had this ridiculously awesome 1-9 order. The top 6 were extremely good though.
Well, I was 1,975,372982393298392929% wrong on Josh Donaldson, so.... Funny; at one point, I'd thought about asking if people thought what Gordon seems best at is repeatable. That would be a concern. And what I mean is: we know, if we sign Davis, he can hit home runs. But can Gordon maintain this patient approach to hitting and will it have any impact on the line-up?
well, I remember Mike Hampton was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher (not even sure if he was still on the team then)...the others, dunno
Also Pete Shourek was good also. That team was very good offensively, especially with Sean Berry and Hidalgo as bench players hitting over .300. They could use Speirs to SS and Berry to 3b. Even Ausmus had a very good offensive year, for him at least with an OBP over .350.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Jeff Luhnow on Colby Rasmus: "We obviously want to keep Colby. So that’s the outcome that we’re hoping for."</p>— Evan Drellich (@EvanDrellich) <a href="https://twitter.com/EvanDrellich/status/663829204161564673">November 9, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Mike Hampton hit .262 in 1998. Mike Magnante hit 1.000 and had an OPS of 2.000. He was simply awesome.
Working on a three year deal? Or just hoping Rasmus returns on a one year $16 million deal? Or lying his ass off?
I don't think anybody realistically wants or expects Rasmus to take the 1 year deal. If they want him back, they're going to work on a multi-year deal... if he's just blowing smoke, and they don't want him back, Rasmus will sign elsewhere. Rasmus will not take the QO deal to play for a team that doesn't really want him.
